Congressman Ron Paul at the Republican Leadership Conference – 2011

Is it just me, or are seemingly incessant GOP debates the past few months allowing President Obama’s lack of public exposure to seem more and more like solid leadership? The Republican lineups simplistic, square and reactionary focus on “Anti-Obama” rhetoric especially on foreign policy has highlighted a resoundingly hawkish stance on Iran with little attention to our current engagements in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And while it may be expedient amongst a certain political base to try and one-up each other in aggressive foreign policy talk, only Ron Paul challenges the party line on Americas role in the world.

When it comes to Pakistan, compared to Democrats Republicans have a consistent history of preferring to work closely with the military establishment in Islamabad. While there is a level of bipartisanship post 9/11, (case in point is Obama’s continuation of Bush era drone use with little debate), Republicans have through the Cold War and beyond preferred dealing with the military establishment rather than focusing on democratic, or liberal institution building. Which is not necessarily an entirely erroneous policy; part of the rationale is that state building is expensive in blood, toil, time and treasure and rarely feasible. Further, there are an endless number of constraints and uncertainties that profoundly hinder institution, or democratic state building in a place like Pakistan, rendering Republican policies simply pragmatic.

Which brings us to current policy: the bipartisan endorsed “Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act” (S. 1707) enacted in 2009 has yet to bear tangible fruit. Granted the aforementioned that institution building is time exhaustive, the fact remains that Pakistan has deteriorated politically, in the realm of security and economically. And having watched everyone from Gov. Romney, Sen. Santorun, Gov. Perry, Rep. Bachmann and yes even the soft spoken Gov. Huntsman, reiterate hawkish foreign policy while refusing to acknowledge a need for meaningful improvement, only Rep. Ron Paul’s extreme calls for an isolationist posture offer some semblance of change. And because his prescriptions have yet to be tried, the utility of his ideas have yet to be tested. But now may be a time to consider his stance since they call for exactly what the Pakistani public wants.

Referring to our Pakistan policy as nothing short of “Bombs for Bribes” Ron Paul acknowledges the nobility, yet inherent futility in calling for democratic institutions in all places of strategic engagement. He understands that we are already engaged in “130 countries” with “700 bases around the world” and in this speech against the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act, he bluntly explains:

“the way we treat our fellow countries around the world is we tell them what to do and if they do it, we give them money. If they don’t we bomb them. Under this condition we are doing both. We are currently dropping bombs in Pakistan and innocent people get killed. If you want to promote our good values and democratic processes, you can’t antagonize the people”

Ron Paul Opposes “Bombs and Bribes” – 9/30/2009 - VIDEO

He goes on to suggest dialogue and trade as alternatives to current policy. And although his statement is simplistic and was made in 2009, it highlights Ron Paul’s isolationist, more economically focused prescriptions on foreign policy that seek to reduce our military footprint abroad based on pragmatic constraints, like military and fiscal overstretch. And these calls seem more reasonable than before, especially when it comes to Pakistan and the fact that our aid has yet to yield satisfactory results. So while the Obama administration continues engagement and GOP candidates refuse to acknowledge much concern over current policy to Pakistan, can Ron Paul really be the only alternative available?

Someone once considered completely out of left, excuse me, right field, could be the reminder we need to moderate our engagement with countries of interest. Because what is interesting is that current rhetoric in Pakistan is very much in line with Ron Paul’s ideas. Ron Paul isn’t touting conspiracy theories, nor does he echo far left foreign policy thinkers like Noam Chomsky. Rather, his past statements on our engagement in Pakistan as “inadvertently causing chaos” and “violating security and sovereignty“ are exactly what the average Pakistani seems to feel and hears about in their mainstream TV, and print media. Takeaway for us means, it’s a perception that is realistic; perhaps more so than current policy reflects.

In fact, legendary cricket star turned politician Imran Khan’s recent surge in popularity is in large part due to his highly critical foreign policy rhetoric that vociferously calls for D.C. to adopt a more isolationist stance so Pakistan might reclaim lost autonomy. Imran Khan steadily built support for his party on the continued observation that America’s “War on Terror” has intensified insecurity and his subsequent promises to curtail American involvement is a first step in alleviating Pakistan’s problems.

Imran Khan at Davos –  Winning Hearts & Minds; the War on Terror – VIDEO

He underscores Ron Paul’s sentiment that perceptions urgently matter in a climate where American intervention is increasingly received hostilely. While there may be issues of concern with Ron Paul’s overall foreign policy prescriptions, both politicians insistence on winnings hearts and minds does render the congressman’s ideas in relation to Pakistan worthy of consideration. Imran Khan’s recent ascendency and Governor Paul’s gradually increasing support marks a convergence in shifting to a direction of a less militarized approach to engaging Islamabad. Two men once considered out of the realm of political viability now increasingly resonate in their respective publics; policymakers ought to take note.

However, nothing could be more tragic than today’s Pakistan

Let us be clear about Pakistan and judging from the evidence, it seems unlikely that the country will ever be a success story. Everything about Pakistan suggests failure, misery and more failure and misery. No question, people will continue to believe that ‘things will improve’, but I hate to be the guy to break this to the believers – not going to happen, sorry.

What I have come to believe is that Pakistan is a textbook example of classical failure as a state. Right from the start when Pakistan came into being, the country was shaky, poor, and unprepared. To make matters worse, it has always been one problem after another and with each passing day, month, year or a decade, the overall situation has continued to deteriorate through out the country.

Yes, it is true that the love of Pakistan will continue to prevent people within the country to deny that the country has not been a success story. For varying reasons, people will maintain that ‘if only this changes or that power leaves us alone’, Pakistan will be fine. Different ethnic, religious and political groups divided along ideological and territorial lines will advance strong, but naïve reasons for defending Pakistan in spite of daily suicide bombings, beheadings, stoning, growing poverty, frightening population explosion, and so on so forth. And, those who question Pakistan’s overall physiological, political, and economical health would still be considered ‘traitors, foreign agents and enemies of Pakistan’ but this bullying by the misguided must not stop those who argue for a different course.

Nations (Pakistanis still have to forge a national bond to become a nation) don’t succeed or fail in a day or two. It takes generations to become successful and it takes miraculous harmony and exceptional commitment to keep the progress alive and the society to thrive, something that has not happened in Pakistan.  Unless people in Pakistan from all walks of life fully understand that emotional rants, hyper charged rhetoric, insane conspiracy theories, and the desire to ‘conquer’ everything and everyone else is not the way to make Pakistan a success story, things are not change or improve, period.  

For Pakistanis, the first goal must be to become realistic and accept ground realities, even if it makes them question everything they have been told about Pakistan’s history and its future. Loyalty to Pakistan does not, and it should not mean accepting the narrative put forward by the judiciary, jihadists, and judges and yes, even generals. On the contrary, country’s love makes it a patriotic duty to not be conned by shady judges, crooked journalists, and dishonest politicians.  Nope, people of Pakistan will have to decide, independently, about what is good for them and what is good for their country.

Pervez Musharraf – Freedom through Dictatorship ?

Well, I called it: Pervez Musharraf is staging a return to Pakistani politics. Launching his new “All Pakistan Muslim League” (AMPL) party this week in a plan to return to the country, the former General will have to face a tremendously skeptical, increasingly hardened citizenry and even tougher adversaries in the judicial branch and opposition parties. In an Al Jazeera special report, Musharraf’s former Legal Advisor Ahmed Raza Kasuri insisted that should tacit approval come from the country’s military establishment and most importantly, with support of a “silent majority” Kasuri measures at 60-65% of moderate Pakistani’s, Musharraf will garner required support to win in future elections. Political analyst Imtiaz Gul insisted otherwise explaining not only would the military establishment be weary of backing Musharraf who cost them valuable political capital when he sacked the judiciary in 2007 and issued a State of Emergency, but also because he has “lost relevance” in Pakistan today.

Gul makes a valuable point: without relevance a political figure is climbing an uphill battle of garnering credibility, and because credibility is deeply intertwined with legitimacy, Musharraff undoubtedly faces a bumpy comeback.

But relevance is not necessarily an impediment to power in Pakistan since the current situation lends a valuable opportunity for it to be readily earned. Current President Asif Zardari usurped such an opportunity when his wife was tragically murdered and assumed leadership, riding the waves of sympathy that swept the nation to win elections. While that “relevance” is waning now, it was enough to allow him a seat of power for 2 years and actually shake off some of the “Mr. 10%” infamy, which is a far larger feat than what Mushrraf faces today.

While the main opposition party leaders Asif Zardari and Nawaaz Sharif are forever bogged by allegations of corruption, Musharraff’s criticisms revolve around issues of “democracy”.

His most vociferous opponents will cite his sacking of the judiciary, coup to power, and 9 year dictatorial reign as subverting democracy in Pakistan. But such criticism of Musharraf is both misleading and mostly hyperbole.

The deficient part of such rhetoric lies in lacking recognition of liberalism. Notions of individual human rights and liberty, free trade, separation of church and state and religious tolerance are erroneously assumed to come only with democratic leadership in Pakistan. On the contrary, liberal policies extending specifically to women’s rights, fostering regional cooperation and trade, namely with India, opening domestic markets, such as free media and holding free and fair elections were successfully carried out previously by Musharraf.

Ironically, under the title of “dictator”, he brought forth more liberal triumphs than any other leaders in my lifetime. And it is important to not confuse democracy with liberalism. Fareed Zakaria makes this distinction in tweaking “Democratic Peace Theory”. His ideas are described:

“democracy is defined in terms of the process by which a government is selected. In contrast, “constitutional liberalism” is defined not by how the government is selected, but rather b the extent to which the society and its institutions protect individuals’ basic rights (to life, property, freedom of speech, and religion)”

Thus basic tenants of a such liberalism, to a fair extent were brought forth by Musharraf. And as political change seems imminent in Pakistan, if we continue looking to political theory one might advance a case for liberalism by way of identifying Musharraf’s opposition. If we take a voluntaristic view of government, wherein heads of states are integral parts of policymaking as opposed to looking mostly at system wide determinants of policy, one finds that not only corruption, but the fact that both Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif are part of feudal, landowning elites in Pakistan is meaningful. With that background, and likely subsequent value sets which are diametrically opposed to liberal notions of liberty and individual rights, Pakistan runs the risk of remaining socially, and economically stagnant under their leadership. Moreover, with the U.S. winding down our war in Afghanistan and shifting in to Pakistan, more than ever liberal ideals are needed.

No amount of drones, target killings or CIA intervention have yet quelled extremism let alone terrorism in Pakistan since 9/11. Modernity and liberalism are Pakistan’s best bet at framing a solution for the long run.

It cannot be an overnight shift, but it will require leadership that espouses liberal ideals. Because without credible experience in upholding individual rights and freedoms, only halfhearted appreciation will come for liberalism and even weaker attempts to implement them.

Is Musharraf the solution Pakistan is looking for? I do not know. But until new, more modern, and liberal alternatives in political leadership are available, he just might be the best option now.

According to the New York Times, Pakistan’s military is maneuvering to remove the current government. This, according to the paper, is because of corruption and lack of proper response to the flood.

What is missing from the report is that once this government is gone, angels and superheroes are going to takeover and they will change everything wrong with Pakistan, overnight.

The world has seen this before, but I suspect that people in Pakistan like this game of throwing out democratic governments and bringing in old, tried, and tired hands with this hope that somehow, magically, things will change and yes, improve, even though, history begs to differ.

No point in repeating that the current government has been perpetually dealt with crisis right after Musharaff and his cronies left the country without any food, water and money. What Musharaff and his gang did leave behind were multiple disasters in the shape of terrorism, charged up lawyers movement, and uncountable other problems that the current government is still trying to solve.

If Pakistan is viewed as a society without the deranged and delusional support of Pakistan’s contemporary electronic media, it is still not a bad place. However, because of the consistent poisonous war against the left leaning and progressive government of Pakistan People’s Party waged by the jihadists, so called-journalists and judges with the not so subtle help from the army, the country seems like a hell hole.

Ironically, the current champions of freedom of press have jailed journalists while they were in Power. Ask Najam Sethi, Husain Haqani (to name a few) about the experience. Even worse, the same people who claim to be in love with ‘independent judiciary’ are also responsible for organizing the one and only attack on judiciary. Just ask Sajad Ali Shah about it.

As awful as it sounds, it seems likely that the Zardari and Gillani will be shown the door, but it is going to be a supremely sad day for Pakistan’s public and for its future. Gone are the days when an elected government was overthrown, especially when it represented people from smaller provinces, and people took it quietly. Not any more.

Equally terrible is the prospect of ordinary Pakistanis suffering because of this upcoming ‘revolution’. And those, who are inviting a revolution, must not forget what happened in China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba when ordinary people gave up their rights for buying into the hideous notion of a better future. Better life after a revolution remains an unfulfilled dream, and an empty promise. It has never anywhere in the world, and it is not going to happen in Pakistan either. It will only make life more miserable for ordinary citizens and it will tremendously help the hard core hyper nationalists dying to dominate the society.

So, here is a message from insanity to the generals in Pakistan. “Go ahead, remove the government, and make my day.” 

]]> http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/09/28/a-message-from-insanity/feed/ 0 http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/09/28/obama%e2%80%99s-wars-%e2%80%93-not-planning-to-fail-but-failing-to-plan/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=obama%25e2%2580%2599s-wars-%25e2%2580%2593-not-planning-to-fail-but-failing-to-plan http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/09/28/obama%e2%80%99s-wars-%e2%80%93-not-planning-to-fail-but-failing-to-plan/#comments Tue, 28 Sep 2010 05:04:18 +0000 Zainab Jeewanjee http://pakistan.foreignpolicyblogs.com/?p=2281

Shifting the Focus to Pakistan

“Obama’s Wars” released today already has the attentive public abuzz with tidbits of explosive revelations disclosing divergences at the top levels of government; nothing short of that we’ve come to expect from a Bob Woodward work. While McChrystal’s abrupt departure earlier this year had already exposed wrangling between our executive branch and military personnel, Woodward’s book is set to make public the reality of Obama’s campaign promise in setting Pakistan squarely at center stage in our War on Terror.

“we need to make clear to people that the cancer is in Pakistan”

The book will illustrate Obama’s aim to wind down the war; elucidating his always meticulous refrain from using “Victory” in reference to Afghanistan.  Woodward reports however, that he is determined that no success can come without targeting Al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban in Pakistan.

According to the Washington Post, the book recounts a top secret meeting with Obama’s then Director of national Intelligence, Mike McConnell who specifically warned that Pakistan is not be trusted as a partner in our Afghanistan engagement.

It’s thus no wonder “quagmire” is used to describe the task at hand. Because regardless of how much the President wants to cut back in Afghanistan, the very strong reluctance stems from potentially risking American interests and leaving the aforementioned “cancer” in Pakistan. So deepening, or as the President might prefer, “shifting” the focus requires a new, more Pakistan focused agenda.

Looking at his National Security Strategy laid out in May 2010, we do find Pakistan is a top concern. Amidst steadfast commitment to liberalist principles calling to defeat terrorism with multilateralism, in adherence with international law and a sensitive awareness to growing interdependence in an increasingly globalized system, the document reads our security objective as such:

“to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qa’ida and its affiliates through a comprehensive strategy that denies them safe haven, strengthens front-line partners, secures our homeland, pursues justice through durable legal approaches, and counters a bankrupt agenda of extremist and murder with an agenda of hope and opportunity. The frontline of this fight is Afghanistan and Pakistan”

Naming Pakistan alongside Afghanistan underscores the President’s shifting focus. The policy refers to Pakistan as the “epicenter of violent extremism” and warns “danger from this region will only grow if it’s security slides backward”.

Throughout the document, we see such warnings used interchangeably for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Perhaps an indication of how policymakers and journalists use sweeping generalizations such as “Af-Pak” for two countries still far from understood. However the National Security Policy makes no mistake in interchanging recommendations. Clearly spelling out that “denying Al Qa-da the Ability to Threaten the American People, our Allies, Our partners and our Interests Overseas” is our main objective, it specifically spells out how to achieve this in Afghanistan through:

-       Continued work with the United Nations and Afghan Government

-       Improving accountable and affective governance

-       Assistance on supporting the President of Afghanistan

-       Supporting ministries, governors and local leaders who have demonstrated measured progress in combating corruption

-       Targeting our aid to Agriculture and human rights

-       Military and International Security Assistance Forces partnering with Afghanistan to target the insurgency

-       Timetable laid out: transition to Afghan responsibility. July 2011 reducing troops.

This describes the first two parts of the three pronged approach spelled out in the National Security Strategy. The third prong refers to Pakistan and is relatively vague. It restates the objective of “strengthening Pakistan’s capacity to target violent extremists with continued assistance in those efforts” without laying out how this can occur. With Afghanistan, there is reference to the United Nations, specific levels of government and ISAF forces collaborating as a means to acheiving the objective to combat and provide security from violent extremists. No such specificities are spelled out in reference to Pakistan. Rather, the document vaguely describes an approach that is meant to

“strengthen Pakistan’s democracy…provide “assistance responsive to the needs of the Pakistani people and sustain a long term partnership committed to…deepening cooperation in a broad range of areas …in the years to come”

That is not a strategy. There is not a linking of means to an end. There is no specific timetable or reference to benchmarks for the end objective, nor quantifiable measurements for success. Further, Pakistan has not been able to cement it’s democracy let alone sufficiently respond to the needs of its population in 60+ years, making our intentions to do so implausible. In regards to “long term, deepening cooperation” amidst the staunch multilateral rhetoric, the document does not once refer to Pakistan as among the “partners” it seeks to engage in reaching our objectives. It references “fostering a relationship” but partnership is nowhere to be seen.

So, if the President has his way, we will wind down Afghanistan and likely shift focus to Pakistan. I hope by then there exists a more clearly laid out and practical approach to achieving our objectives and securing our interests there. Otherwise, without sufficient planning, the quagmire just deepens.

Surprisingly, this has worked superbly.

On top of everything else bad for the county, the electronic media imploded on the scene in recent years and the entire right wing, pro-Taliban, anti progress, anti rationality, anti Western, anti Women nationalists got an ideal platform for spewing non stop venom. This nauseating propaganda against pretty much everything has totally destroyed rationality in Pakistan and helped hate become the main argument against common sense.

Too bad for Pakistan, because it is not a good way to collaborate or co exists in the world.

Pakistan has not been able to do anything positive on its own and nothing has been planned, programmed or executed to put Pakistan on a peaceful path. And, it is not an unreasonable conclusion that there is nothing in Pakistan’s history that suggests that the nation is serious about anything, but -prepare yourself- jihad.

Therefore, it is no surprise that today, the world is literally ‘sick & tired’ of Pakistan. The Western governments are exhausted by perpetual crisis in Pakistan and the non stop aid demands that come out of these tragedies engulfing Pakistan, day after day, government after government.

So, naturally, when floods destroyed about 25 to 30 percent of Pakistan, it took forever for anyone to gear up, yet again, to help Pakistan. Because of Pakistan’s inability to help itself, or, accept some responsibility for the complete failure of everything across the board, there was no appetite for helping Pakistan on this scale.

After a very slow and terribly late start, a lot has been done, but whatever has been done is not enough. There are people who are doing everything they can to raise funds, collect food, medicines but what is needed is a commitment, serious, long term, generous commitment from the world to help the poor people who were destabilized by this horrific tragedy.

Fortunately for Pakistan, a friend in Maryland, who is a medical doctor, has been working, e-mailing, calling, and visiting everyone who would listen to bring attention to the flood victims. And, based on the evidence that I have seen, this selfless doctor was the first one to correctly point out that the flood in Pakistan has done more damaged than the Haitian earth quake and Indonesian Tsunami combined. Thankfully, there is awareness about the flood damage, but the time is running out as the gap between rich and poor in Pakistan is frighteningly increasing and this would lead to a catastrophe.

Also, the problem of flooding is going to end sooner or later and once the water is gone, a very difficult and problematic scenario is going to challenge not only Pakistan, but also the world.

Not only is Pakistan’s agricultural sector been totally annihilated by the floods, but the entire infrastructure for about 30 to 35 of the country has been ruined beyond repair. So, first, Pakistan needs money today to urgently help the flood victims find shelter, food, medicines, and later rehabilitate them, but also rebuild everything that was obliterated in three provinces from scratch. This is going to need a lot of money and this is where the world commitment to peace, prosperity and above all, to humanity will come into play.

If Pakistan is quickly helped, then, the risk of the Taliban winning hearts and minds of desperate people is extremely low. However, if the money or the aid does not flow towards the needy, it is very likely that the Taliban and other negative forces will jump to fill the vacuum and in the process, hand a permanent defeat to the civilized world.

Pakistani Tennis Star Asiam Qureshi Calls for Peace at U.S. Open 2010

It’s my first week in Denver where I’ll be attending graduate school the next two years and I’m soaking in how kind this city is. It is the most laid back, genuine U.S. City I’ve experienced. The sincerity with which people prod “No, where are you really from?” when I initially respond “California”, is priceless. I feel like a novelty here. At an Eid Celebration last night, even a local of Pakistani descent pointed out “Wow, the guys are going to flip over you. There are no ethnic girls in Denver”.

“Ethnic”? I’ll take it; I realize I’m getting a pass for being a Californian female. Because in light of increasingly disheartening news from Pakistan, be it about floods, match fixing in cricket, and mostly terrorism plaguing the country since 9/11, Pakistani’s have captured the American state of mind in a less than appealing way. Once indecipherable on a world map for most Americans, Pakistan emerged as our stalwart ally in victory after 40+ years of Cold War. Yet as we turn to Islamabad again to fight a War on Terror, we possess a deep skepticism of Pakistani intentions.

Pakistan is rampantly associated with concepts of Terrorism, Extremism, Al Qaeda, Taliban, Corruption and disaster as D.C. and Islamabad are ever more understood as reluctant partners. Plus post thwarting the Faisal Shahzad situation , expert indications that homegrown terrorism poses the biggest threat to the United States, stabbing of a cab driver of Pakistani descentand Amnesty International’s recent report that hate crimes against Muslims is on an alarming rise, being Pakistani seems like an uphill battle in America. So on an individual level, Pakistani’s and Americans may be feeling the same skepticism that governments harbor for one another in bilateral relations. But this week the world was abuzz when Pakistani tennis player Asiam-ul-Haq Qureshi with irresistible sincerity exclaimed:

Since September 11, every time I come to the States or western countries I feel people have the wrong impression about Pakistan as a terrorist nation. I just wanted to declare that we are very friendly, loving and caring people, and we want peace in this world as much as Americans and the rest of the world wants.

There are extremists in every religion, but just because of them you cannot judge the whole country as a terrorist nation. I just wanted to get this message across as a Pakistani

In plain terms Qureshi clarified that his country is a mostly moderate nation where people expect the same peace and security desired by all people. He reminded us of Pakistan’s humanity, directly countering the “transactional” ties that progressively complicate our understanding of Pakistan. Fareed Zakaria might agree. In a recent piece, he eloquently concurred:

Across the Muslim world, militant Islam’s appeal has plunged. In the half of the Muslim world that holds elections, parties that are in any way associated with Islamic jihad tend to fare miserably, even in Pakistan.

In his article “We’re Safer Than We Think” Zakaria points out that Muslims in Pakistan and beyond are if anything, less safe from terrorism than we are as they suffer the brunt of radical Islam’s consequences.

Over the last few years, imams and Muslim leaders across the world have been denouncing suicide bombings, terrorism, and Al Qaeda with regularity….The fatal problem with these kinds of attacks is that they kill ordinary civilians—not U.S. soldiers or diplomats—and turn the local population against Islamic radicals.

With more thorough detail, Zakaria’s is saying exactly what Qureshi did; Pakistan is not a country of terrorists. So next time I get asked where I am “really” from, I might just say “I’m from Asiam Qureshi’s country”. ]]> http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/09/12/asiam-qureshis-country/feed/ 0 http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/09/05/will-anger-solve-anything/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=will-anger-solve-anything http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/09/05/will-anger-solve-anything/#comments Mon, 06 Sep 2010 04:52:55 +0000 Bilal Qureshi http://pakistan.foreignpolicyblogs.com/?p=2222

Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured.

Mark Twain

It really is a grueling task to write about Pakistan because there is never anything encouraging to discuss. It is always an angry mob shouting against ‘foreign hands, ‘corruption’ bomb attacks, which now has turned into a horrific Hollywood style shootout after the explosions. The situation has deteriorated to a new low because the list of targets has been expanded to include shrines, mosques, and yes, peaceful religious processions.

Worse, now, it is public lynching and execution without any trial, jury, and witnesses, judge, or, evidence. One, but not the only example of this mindset was on display recently when we witnessed humanity gored to death by the mobsters of Sialkot.

If that was not enough, then, there are protests in the country against power shortage, lack of food commodities (think flour, sugar, rice etc).  To top all this, we see agitation and processions against America, facebook and Youtube (and Israel and India, of course) where people are going crazy with rage. And if this mayhem was not sufficient to make Pakistani supporters nauseous, we now have about 24 to 26% of the country under water because of record flooding in Pakistan.

There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that today’s Pakistan is one of the most dangerous places in the world, regardless of what yardstick we use to measure danger. It offers nothing to anyone who might be interested in visiting because of work or family related situation. I have tried hard, but can’t come up with any rational or logical explanation to fly there. Pakistanis living abroad are cutting back their annual travel plans. Those who travel to Pakistan for work prepare like they won’t come back. And leisure travel to Pakistan which was always abysmal has diminished altogether, thus, permanently depriving the country from tourism money helping its depressed economy.  

Unfortunately, it is obvious that Pakistanis don’t even know about businesses planning to expand beyond America (google, Microsoft, Oracle, Intel, Dell, HP, Apple, and the list goes on and on) have opted for two countries. For hardware and other production related supplies, corporations deal with China and for software and call centers, businesses establish branches in India. And for Pakistan it means lost opportunities – and by extension, loss of significant tax revenue, excellent job and training openings.

But, if you look at Pakistan, the population there is more concerned about fighting Americans, fighting each other, fighting imaginary threats, instead of developing a country which attracts visitors, business and tourists.

There are a lot of good people, both Pakistanis and non-Pakistanis who believe that Pakistan is a lost cause and there is nothing that will change Pakistan’s course. They believe that living in denial and living on borrowed money has its limit and very soon, the country will explode, not because of external danger, but because of out of control population, debt, inflation, and overall economic stagnation.   

However, I believe that there is always hope, but, I also believe that at this point, only brutal honesty, seriousness, objectivity, and hard work will change Pakistan’s future. So, if Pakistanis want to continue on their current turbulent journey, they don’t have to change anything. However, if they want to live in peace, prosperity, and happiness, they will have to stop blaming America, Blackwater, Jews, Hindus, and yes, even Zardari. Instead, Pakistan will have to work together, not against each other to turn misery into fortune. Remember, Pakistan’s problems did not begin with Zardari’s arrival and Pakistan’s fortunes are not going to change when Zardari is gone.  

Saint Augustine

According to a report in Dawn, once again, Pakistanis have embarrassed themselves, and ironically enough, their struggling country the other day at Washington Dulles Airport by acting awfully.

Bravo.

It is unfortunate to note that there has never been any report of delegation from any other country getting in trouble at any airport in America, except-prepare yourself for the shock- from Pakistan. And, it is impossible to comprehend why people from Pakistan, especially when they are ‘touring’ the United States in any official capacity don’t act professionally. Why must every law, every rule and every regulation that is the norm in America for Americans and foreigners alike be considered an attack on Pakistan’s pride?

Remember, there are delegations from around the world in America every day; trade delegations, cultural missions, business travelers, military and civilian groups, and all these people visiting the United States never ever get in trouble, especially at the airports, but somehow, Pakistanis have managed to make a scene out of two, not one, but two official trips within couple of months.

The latest incident took place at Washington Dulles Airport when a Pakistani army officer made unacceptable comment or remark while aboard a commercial flight from Washington to Tampa, Florida. Whatever he said was enough to cause concern among the passengers who contacted the airline to express their anxiety about the comment and as result of this discomfort among the passengers, the entire delegation was asked to leave the plane.

Somehow, this incident has become a diplomatic row between Washington, a city that is always accommodating and yes, apologizing to Pakistan, and Islamabad, a city that is always unhappy and angry with America.

Fortunately, there is no evidence that these passengers were removed because they are from Pakistan, but the evidence that has emerged so far suggests that the leader of the delegation was responsible for triggering this unpleasant incident.

Anyone who has traveled to Pakistan or has lived and traveled within Pakistan can understand that people serving in Pakistan army are walking statues of arrogance. They consider civilians to be second class citizen and these officers are not used to answering questions by the civilians. So, it is only natural that when they were confronted at Dulles Airport, they ‘demanded’ to speak with ‘higher ups’ or ‘in-charge’ of security at the airport. Imagine, just imagine the oozing arrogance from the scenario. Instead of answering genuine questions by the officials regardless of their rank or title, Pakistani delegation wanted to speak to the man/woman responsible for running the entire security operation at the airport. Because they had an invitation from Centcom these visiting buffoons thought they cannot be stopped, questioned, or worse, expected to deal with junior level people.

Whatever happened at the airport was unfortunate, but the reaction from Pakistan Army’s Headquarters was even more appalling. Instead of dressing down the leader of the delegation for creating a scene, his bad behavior was encouraged and even rewarded because the delegation was asked to cancel trip and come back to Pakistan.

Yeah, real mature way of handling a difficult situation. It just confirms that Pakistan’s army is out of control, period.

When people from Pakistan complain that their country has gone to hell, they don’t stop and honestly take into account their own transgressions. You will never hear any Pakistani admitting fault or failure, but the tendency is always to shift the blame, to always find a culprit somewhere else. But the sad reality is that it is Pakistan that is mostly at fault. The latest airport incident is just another example and a reminder that we are not dealing with a normal nation.

Zainab Jeewanjee with Ambassador Hussain Haqqani

“30 years of this whole business that started with the jihad against the Soviet Union is what we are trying to deal with the aftermath of. Its 30 years of these groups, supporting them, funding them, the opening of radical madrassahs in various parts of the country. Now I think we’ve done a decent job in the last two years of beginning the cleanup”

Pakistan is serious about cleaning up terrorism, but the mess runs deep. And If you want to share in an insightful discussion on the Wikileaks reports, I recommend watching Charlie Rose from last night. Because Pakistan pulled out the big guns in responding to the reports that suggested their Interservices Intelligence Agency is “aiding” the enemies in Afghanistan. Ambassador Hussain Haqqani was Rose’s guest and spoke directly to American anxieties that Pakistan is not entirely interested in ousting terrorists from the region. Specifically responding to the question of ISI links to the Taliban, Haqqani said:

“It goes back to the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The CIA and ISI both worked with the Mujahedeen who morphed into Taliban. But now the Pakistani military and ISI are conducting successful military operations in SWAT and South Waziristan.

He elaborated:

“We’ve Taken out extremists and 74 ISI personnel have been killed in the past two years. With as many as 233 injured. That alone should be sufficient to convince people that was then and now is now and Pakistan is standing firmly on the side of those who want to eliminate the Taliban and extremists”

The statistics were particularly hard hitting. They brought a human element to our somewhat sterilized discussion about Pakistan here in the states. Being geographically removed, and with a vastly distinct culture, we are mostly informed of how the government in Islamabad deals with our administration in D.C., resorting to diplomatic sound bites and news for our information. But Haqqanis statistics provoke us to realize that just as we have struggled in Afghanistan, Pakistan too has sacrificed greatly as an ally in our war and continues to be deeply invested in combating terror.

Haqqani reminds us that the Wikileaks story is just that; a whistleblower. Without subtracting from the value of revealing what governments might otherwise keep classified, the Ambassador offered facts that quell sensationalized reception of the reports.

Rose asked weighty questions in trademark straightforwardness allowing us a chance to get answers to that the Wikileaks story leaves us lingering with. For instance, “what keeps Pakistan from doing more”; a question even those with ample knowledge and understanding of history and ground realities who can put the Wikileaks story into context sometimes wonder. Rose speculated it was a concern with India, and a fear of U.S. withdrawal. The Ambassador responded:

“There is a concern that India is not yet reconciled to our nationhood and statehood. Those are concerns reflected in public opinion and government has to deal with view that the US has not been a consistent friend of Pakistan and if we do too much at the behest of US they could leave us in the lurch and walk away again. The Biggest concern is the US can actually leave projects incomplete it has happened in the past US assistance and economic aid suspended arbitrarily and at short notice. Things have been left incomplete. They have had a very difficult relationship in the past 6 decades. We are trying tot address the totality of these issues”

It is no secret that India Pakistan relations are a primary driver of action in South Asian politics so the real nugget in the Ambassador’s above response is the talk of Pakistani Public opinion.

One of the first rules we learn in politics is that perceptions matter and what our pundits and political speechwriters have left out of the conversation is how Pakistani opinions factor into policymaking.

The Obama administration made clear by way of allocating funding in the Kerry Lugar bill that America would no longer support military regimes at the expense of democracy in Pakistan, yet we still tend to leave consideration of Pakistani public opinion out of our own expectations. Apprehensions of U.S. foreign policy are increasingly common as Pakistan deteriorated economically, politically in overall security post 9/11.

Ambassador Haqqani did an eloquent job of explaining this tremendous sensitivity with which Islamabad must balance its interest in continuing bilateral cooperation with D.C. while alleviating the rampant fear amongst Pakistani citizens that the United States might not be trustworthy, or as the Ambassador put it “ungrateful” for all their country does.

And although Ambassador Haqqani concluded on a positive note , citing increased military cooperation in fighting terrorism and tripartite agreements on trade, he gave viewers a clear view of the “totality” and complexity of issues from the Pakistan side.

To tally Islamabad’s task list thus far: in addition to 30 years of deep cleaning, speedy recovery from loss of life, toil, treasure and time, one must add mending 60 years of mistrust with the worlds superpower to Pakistan’s list of things everyone wants done yesterday.

So let’s think twice, maybe even thrice before sponging the Wikileaks reports without an understanding of context and implicating Pakistan for not doing enough.  Prime Minister Cameron, that’ means you.

Facebook Banned in Pakistan – May 2010

There’s a notion of two distinct America’s; one that is conservative, mostly Republican Red and the other a more liberal Democratic Blue, and in a similar way I see two Pakistan’s this week.

Case in point: the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority severed access to the worlds largest social networking site this week when a Lawyers Association won a court injunction officially banning Facebook because of a page entitled “Post Drawings of Prophet Mohammad Day”.  As of now, the Pakistan government has added YouTube, and certain pages on Flickr and Wikipedia to the ban list which is either fueling vehement support of the ban (a conservative, we’ll say Red thing to do) and protests against Facebook or a eliciting a total opposite response “God save this country, lunatics are running it” (a more liberal, response we’ll label Blue).

The polarized views are reminiscent of our own democratic deliberations; strong demonstrations for (Red) and against (Blue) the legality of the Iraq invasion beginning in 2004, or protests against the passage of Proposition 8 (Blue) in California which outlawed same sex marriage in 2008 (Red).

So do such polar views necessarily indicate a distinctly Blue and Red America? I’ve never thought so, because overallAmerican’s tend to be far more centrist than our elected officials make us out to be in a two party system. Generally, Americans from California to New York and everywhere in between share basic social and cultural values; we watch the same shows, dress similarly, and ultimately ascribe to the values outlined in our Constitution (albeit interpretations differ).

But Pakistan is very different. There is far less social homogeneousness and more indications of a vastly distinct populace, a Red and Blue Pakistan if you will. Citizens from the remote, more rural northern areas bordering Afghanistan, or Red places will likely dress, consume, and believe differently than people in the more cosmopolitan hustle and bustle of large cities like Karachi, or Blue Pakistan.

Pakistani’s are educated on vastly different scales. While one child might be raised in a feudal system from a village in Sindh with no education, another might be educated per the Cambridge system in a large city, while another might have only had formal training in religious studies at a Madrassah! In terms of dress; it’s not uncommon to find females covered in burqa’s from head to toe, no face, hands or even eyes showing (Red), while you’ll find other’s in the skimpiest of attire partying until daybreak (Blue), at which point some Pakistani’s may rise to pray at a local Mosque while others are just getting home from a night of drinking and dancing. It’s Red and Blue if i’ve ever seen it, if not as stark as the contrast of Black on White.

So there’s an enormous diversity in belief systems that is more immediately recognized in the Pakistani landscape than in ours. I recall living there while in High School and being shocked at the level of ignorance toward America by some and whole hearted embrace of western culture by others. But polar lifestyles and belief systems amongst Pakistani’s doesn’t indicate there isn’t a grey area of people who fall in between two extremes, nor does it mean the group perceived as more “western” is necessarily against the ban on Facebook. In fact, notorious party animal and international rock star Ali Azmat didn’t denounce the censorship:

“Musician Ali Azmat said the issue should be dealt with sternly so that no such thing takes place in the future. “Every Muslim condemns this act, but it should be handled responsibly because we have to maintain our image. I have registered my condemnation of the relevant Facebook page.”

And that’s when I start to worry. If so called “liberal” personalities in Pakistan can be overworked over the Facebook page and fail to renounce such short sighted legislation, I shudder to think of how widespread acceptance of unnecessary censorship still is in Pakistan.

I’ll be the first to say the Facebook page is in poor taste, it’s a sorry excuse for a cause and the fact that it does not have even  a 20k following yet is testimony to how silly it is. Thus the futility of the inane effort makes the Pakistani ban a disproportionate, counter productive response.

The page does not incite hate or violence and I would go so far as to say it posed an opportunity for the Pakistani government to lead its citizens to moderation in this instance. After violent protests against the Danish cartoons which forever mar the image of Muslims today, Pakistan missed a chance to demonstrate Islamic sensibility.

By banning Facebook over a trivial issue the government makes a mockery of it’s people, Red and Blue alike. Officially designated as The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the government carries a profound responsibility to simultaneously uphold freedom and religious consciousness. Not an easy task, but the last thing Pakistan needs right now is are further riled extremists and increased Anti-Americanism.

Are the Drones Worth the Cost of Cooperation ?

Read Part 1 – Reconciling CIA Drones In Pakistan

Read Part 2  - Concessions & Collateral Damage

The most provocative piece I’ve seen on drones in Pakistan was published last week. Not the most detailed, well researched article (the New Yorker takes the cake so far) but certainly the most confrontational. Farhat Taj writes in the Daily Times that International media, including American and Pakistani reports critical of drone use are totally unfounded. Vehemently, Taj writes:

” The people of Waziristan are suffering a brutal kind of occupation under the Taliban and al Qaeda. It is in this context that they would welcome anyone, Americans, Israelis, Indians or even the devil, to rid them of the Taliban and al Qaeda”

It’s a grand, almost inconceivable statement given that Anti Americanism is on a rapid rise and India / Pakistan are widely considered notorious Arch Nemesis in international relations today.  Taj says inhabitants of Waziristan actually “welcome” drone attacks and dismisses all accusations of civilian casualties as Taliban propaganda. Basing this on the idea that almost no media are allowed in the area, she concludes there is no verifiable evidence, and therefore no reason for concern of civilian casualties. But mere logic would indicate otherwise. Although surgical, drones are not so precise to as to obliterate one individual at a time. When they strike, the range of damage inflicted by any drone is bound to cause peripheral damage, destroying more than just a singular terrorist.

Taj also too vehemently dismisses the concern that drones infringe on Pakistan’s sovereignty. She says greater Pakistan is oblivious to the more pressing priority of wiping out Taliban. And while I agree the Taliban is inflicting profound, perpetual and grave damage on Waziristan, greater Pakistan’s perceptions are important and not to be overlooked so easily.

Waziristan is but a fraction of Pakistan. If the majority of Pakistani’s see drones as an infringement of sovereignty, future cooperation with strategically poised Pakistan can become difficult. The alliance is already waning and one of politics’ golden rules is: perceptions matter. Whether or not there are exact numbers of civilian casualties, Pakistani’s are strongly against unmanned aircraft dropping bombs in their territory. Regardless of circumstances, the perception of an alliance with America, and our War on Terror is endangered by the drones. Hence arguments that drones are counter productive.

At what cost are we using drones to wipe out a few key leaders from militant and extremist groups? Might we accomplish the same success in hunting down terrorists by employing Pakistani forces to take these guys out themeslves using close cooperation with our counter terrorism, intelligence and military operations?

Some already argue that Islamabad tacitly works with the United States on drones in the north, however, the official and public stance of the Pakistani government is of staunch disapproval of drones. It’s a fair argument because without Islamabad’s approval, the United States would be in violation of international law, and protocol in using drones in Waziristan minus Pakistsan’s approval. So I buy the argument that Islamabad works closely in using drones in the north. But the fact that the government goes to the extent of constantly assuring its public that they disapprove of drones on record, is testimony to how offensive the use of unmanned aircrafts are in Pakistan.

So while our heightened use of drones might be effective in obliterating key leaders from the Taliban ranks for success in the immediate term, the consequences of drones entail potentially riling further anti Americanism which could compromise our interests in the future.

Cooperation is key, and I’m not convinced increased use of drones will help us engage Pakistan in the future.

Bush & Obama : Identical Policies to Pakistan?

Similar to his ratings drop at home, abroad President Obama is being accused of not living up to expectations. In DAWN news this week there’s an article entitled: “Obama’s Changing Tone” suggesting our President is reverting to foreign policy reminiscent of the Bush administration on Pakistan, and to an extent, the greater Muslim World. The idea is that Obama’s planned troop surge in tandem with ever toughening rhetoric post the Fort Hood Massacre and the Christmas Bomber, reflects leadership that’s not much different than former President Bush’s.

But on the contrary, our escalating presence in Pakistan is exactly what Obama promised. During the campaign trail, he made clear that his main focus was Al Qaeda and  destroying terrorists in Pakistan (militants having spilled over from Afghanistan into Pakistan). The rhetoric was so hawkish, it actually became a sticking point before the primaries that Republicans and Democrats like Hillary criticized. Also, the media publicized his staunch rhetoric at length, so

Obama really has not changed tone on Pakistan: an intensified war matches his rhetoric from the start.

Plus is it fair to expect something radically different than the previous administration in the first place? Let’s not forget that it is often the political system and circumstances that drive leadership, and not vice versa. The fact is, America was already deeply engaged in two very problematic wars at the inception of Obama’s Presidency. He inherited an intensely worsening situation in Afghanistan that rapidly spilled across the border into Pakistan. President Obama anticipated this and is thus living up to campaign promises: a more hawkish foreign policy to Pakistan.

Which of course then raises the question: is hawkishness the right approach to Pakistan at this time? Pakistani’s certainly don’t think so.  CIA drones have the entire country in an uproar, while Islamabad isn’t taking well to DC’s tacit encouragement of rapidly increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan, and even billions in aid from America is frowned upon with unprecedented magnitude. And it’s not that the Obama administration isn’t aware of skepticism. Rather, toughening policies are a matter of practicality.

My guess is that the President is thinking: we’re already in Afghanistan, the war is deteriorating into Pakistan, what’s the best way to mitigate the situation, secure the region enough to exit in the next couple years while leaving behind more cooperative players in the region so as to ensure our energy and geopolitical interests in South/Central Asia.

Phew. Now there’s a dilemma. And when looked at from this possible perspective, the Pakistan quagmire is revealed as tremendously complex. It’s such a multifaceted, sweeping, consequential and changing situation that involves so many players who work within the confines of political systems that only history should be the best judge of whether Obama’s stance on Pakistan is constructive or progressive. And that itself is relative. So let’s not be surprised at his hawkishness. It was naive of anyone to expect otherwise in the case of Pakistan.

Reconciling CIA Drones in Pakistan

Click here to Read the First Part: Reconciling CIA Drones in Pakistan Part 1

Defense Secretary Robert Gates met with officials in Islamabad to reiterate the importance of drone attacks, despite escalating reservations of their use amongst Pakistani’s. It’s been a polarizing issue from the onset because while it’s convenient to fly unmanned CIA predator aircraft over potential terrorist havens, they result in significant civilian casualties, and displaced persons. So it’s no surprise that over a year later, reconciling their use in Pakistan is still on the agenda.

For this reason, Secretary Gates announced a possibility of America providing “Pakistan with 12 unarmed Shadow aircraft”. Meaning the planes would not have a capacity to strike, but offer enhanced “surveillance capabilities under U.S. supervision”. It’s a fair decision and something I’ve suggested previously.

Supplying drones to close allies who aid in our War Efforts absolves us of sole liability for collateral damage wreaked by these machines that are always controversial, and increasingly protested internationally.

Gates also stressed the importance of militarily addressing all extremist groups because:

“It’s dangerous to single out any one of these groups and say, ‘If we could beat that group that would solve the problem,’ because they are in effect a syndicate of terrorist operators”

And almost simultaneously, Secretary Clinton unveiled The Afghanistan and Pakistan Regional Stabilization Strategy which sends an increase of 20-30% in civilian experts to both countries and “outlines plans to rebuild the Afghan farm sector, improve governance, and reintegrate extremists into society”. But this strategy of “reintegrating extremists” runs in contradiction to Secretary Gates’ aforementioned remarks.

Gates ruled out any possibility of reintegration calling for a consolidated attack on extremists suggesting that they work in “syndication”, while Cinton’s plan attempts to bring extremists back into the fold of moderate society.

It’s a stark inconsistency in our foreign policy. Because while I think Secretary Clinton’s idea notion of reintegration is more in tune with ground realities, and therefore viable, I figure Secretary Gates was being staunch in talks because finally relinguishing partial drone technology provided him with that margin of hawkishness. Either way though, one thing is certain, despite skepticism on both ends of the U.S. Pakistan relationship, cooperation is ever deepening. ]]> http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/01/22/still-trying-to-reconcile-cia-drones/feed/ 0 http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/12/29/where-the-war-on-terror-is/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=where-the-war-on-terror-is http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/12/29/where-the-war-on-terror-is/#comments Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:57:51 +0000 Zainab Jeewanjee http://pakistan.foreignpolicyblogs.com/?p=1666

The War on Terror has most definitely shifted: terrorists are massacring Pakistani’s. I churn each time I hear of terrorist attacks since 9/11, and mostly since then, those attacks have been in Pakistan. This weeks suicide bombings on religious processions in Karachi during the month of Mahurrum, (a somber time of reflection, considered sacred for many Muslims) are particularly unnerving.

I’ve lived in Karachi and was there until 2001 when suicide bombings were unheard of. And even though Karachi is a relatively chaotic city, never had it been victim to such consistent horror. In my lifetime, Pakistan has suffered it’s most widespread violence and insecurity post 9/11. I’ve already written about the deteriorating state of affairs,  so today i’ll share links to a BBC slideshow and article capturing the recent atrocities :

SLIDESHOW: Karachi March Attacked

ARTICLE : Pakistan’s Recount Horror of Suicide Attack

When the Economist, pundits and politicians declare Pakistan “the most dangerous place in the world”, important to remember is that it really is the most dangerous place: for Pakistanis. ]]> http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/12/29/where-the-war-on-terror-is/feed/ 0